I'm curious about how the management of the engines has changed from the RAF days to the present. I presume RR set a much more stringent requirement when they changed over from flying time to cycle monitoring ?.

The public display Vulcans presumably had the same maintenance requirements as all the other Vulcans?. What was acceptable in 1993 doesn't seem to be allowed in 2015. but I guess that could be as much to do with better understanding of rotor fatigue as any increasing aversion to risk .

So the engines that were overhauled and stored in 1981 were rated for 2000 hours use - it would be interesting to see how this compares to the 1200 cycle limit imposed on the trust. I presume if engine life is now almost expired, 1200 cycles must allow less than 400 flying hours.

I'm aware of the 2 Vulcans that were lost because of engine failure ...and other accounts of pilots needing to shut down engines because of turbine/bearing failure etc. after which the aircraft was able to land safely. I don't know how bad this record is keeping in mind the 100,000's of hours the Vulcan fleet flew but the incidents are shocking. By all accounts, later Vulcans had the areas surrounding the engine protected to prevent engine failure causing wing damage.

Is the Olympus 202 any worse for reliability than other comparable engines of that era such as the Avon and Spey which was still used by the RAF transporters until recently ?.

I'm curious about how the management of the engines has changed from the RAF days to the present. I presume RR set a much more stringent requirement when they changed over from flying time to cycle monitoring ?.

The public display Vulcans presumably had the same maintenance requirements as all the other Vulcans?. What was acceptable in 1993 doesn't seem to be allowed in 2015. but I guess that could be as much to do with better understanding of rotor fatigue as any increasing aversion to risk .

So the engines that were overhauled and stored in 1981 were rated for 2000 hours use - it would be interesting to see how this compares to the 1200 cycle limit imposed on the trust. I presume if engine life is now almost expired, 1200 cycles must allow less than 400 flying hours.

I'm aware of the 2 Vulcans that were lost because of engine failure ...and other accounts of pilots needing to shut down engines because of turbine/bearing failure etc. after which the aircraft was able to land safely. I don't know how bad this record is keeping in mind the 100,000's of hours the Vulcan fleet flew but the incidents are shocking. By all accounts, later Vulcans had the areas surrounding the engine protected to prevent engine failure causing wing damage.

Is the Olympus 202 any worse for reliability than other comparable engines of that era such as the Avon and Spey which was still used by the RAF transporters until recently ?.

Hi Rover 3500,

I think you're asking a lot of pertinent questions.Not everyone on here is ex-RAF or an engineer.I think that it's sad that the more informed in the community, who should know better, seek to belittle you with unpleasant personal attacks.

I think there is a bigger issue here, beyond fatigue indexes on the airframe as it stands & hours / cycles left on these engines as they stand.

XH558 is a heritage asset which has absorbed considerable public money in the form of grants & money from individual donors.For the past 5 years it has been 'ticking over' on around £2.5M a year which is a lot of money but not in terms of running an operation of this nature.As is obvious to see XH558 enjoys unprecedented levels of public support & adulation.We are continually seeing horrendous amounts of public money wasted on arts projects / theatre with low or no popular support. Governmental waste running into many tens of £Billions, £100M+ alone EVERY YEAR on abortive IT schemes which never reach completion.Buck House is due for a revamp at £150M, the Westminster renovation is due to come in at £7BnMy guess is that all of XH558 's ills could be sorted out for £5M perhaps? That buying another 8 or 10 years of displays.How much does it cost to keep the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight in the air each year?I think that GB OWES it to the brave servicemen & women of the Cold War to keep this living memorial aloft for as long as possible, well who christened XH558 "Spirit of Great Britain"?

Yes VULCAN as a breed is bordering on perilous, I think that during development & service nearly 18% of all the VULCAN's built fell out of the air, crashed or went up in flames. I personally think that with CAA oversight XH558 is probably operating as safely as any VULCAN ever has.

No-one wishes to see air-crew put in harms way but by the same token I don't see anyone getting into XH558 with a gun to their head, (if the Trust offered me a flight in a back seat tomorrow with a 99% chance of crashing I'd take that flight!)

As for those who say, "Good while it lasted, over now, move on!" Some of these people may understand VULCAN in technical & engineering terms but I feel they don't 'get' VULCAN. You obviously do.

I think that this has to be be about;What is best for this aeroplane as a heritage asset for the UK. &What do the people of Great Britain want of XH558 going forward.

I am wondering if bolder & more imaginative leadership is needed here?

Engine hours in terms of cycles depends entirely on how the crew use the engines, an engine cycle is from idol -100% and back to idol, that rarely happens in display flying, 100%-50%-75%-40%-100% the trick is using these part cycles efficiently to maximize the full cycle usage, which is why the crew use alot of momentum rather than power to fly displays, less cycles, over the last 2 season non display takeoffs were at a low power settings, to conserve cycles. Current on wing time about 200 hours, that doesn't mean there is 1800 hours missing life, RR said they would support the engines for 1200 cycles irrespective of previous RAF usage, the trust have had numerous conversation with RR about increasing the number of available cycles, but the answer has always been no 1200 is what you have mo more no less.

I think you're asking a lot of pertinent questions.Not everyone on here is ex-RAF or an engineer.I think that it's sad that the more informed in the community, who should know better, seek to belittle you with unpleasant personal attacks.

I think there is a bigger issue here, beyond fatigue indexes on the airframe as it stands & hours / cycles left on these engines as they stand.

XH558 is a heritage asset which has absorbed considerable public money in the form of grants & money from individual donors.For the past 5 years it has been 'ticking over' on around £2.5M a year which is a lot of money but not in terms of running an operation of this nature.As is obvious to see XH558 enjoys unprecedented levels of public support & adulation.We are continually seeing horrendous amounts of public money wasted on arts projects / theatre with low or no popular support. Governmental waste running into many tens of £Billions, £100M+ alone EVERY YEAR on abortive IT schemes which never reach completion.Buck House is due for a revamp at £150M, the Westminster renovation is due to come in at £7BnMy guess is that all of XH558 's ills could be sorted out for £5M perhaps? That buying another 8 or 10 years of displays.How much does it cost to keep the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight in the air each year?I think that GB OWES it to the brave servicemen & women of the Cold War to keep this living memorial aloft for as long as possible, well who christened XH558 "Spirit of Great Britain"?

Yes VULCAN as a breed is bordering on perilous, I think that during development & service nearly 18% of all the VULCAN's built fell out of the air, crashed or went up in flames. I personally think that with CAA oversight XH558 is probably operating as safely as any VULCAN ever has.

No-one wishes to see air-crew put in harms way but by the same token I don't see anyone getting into XH558 with a gun to their head, (if the Trust offered me a flight in a back seat tomorrow with a 99% chance of crashing I'd take that flight!)

As for those who say, "Good while it lasted, over now, move on!" Some of these people may understand VULCAN in technical & engineering terms but I feel they don't 'get' VULCAN. You obviously do.

I think that this has to be be about;What is best for this aeroplane as a heritage asset for the UK. &What do the people of Great Britain want of XH558 going forward.

I am wondering if bolder & more imaginative leadership is needed here?

Regards,Chris(btw) I had the 3500 in P5B Coupe, P6 & SD1[/quote]

I don't mind when people say unpleasant things, I'm used to it after working in troubleshooter type roles in what's left of British manufacturing industry all my working life. Heard it all. But people all have egos and going around questioning assumptions can be misinterpreted ..not the best way of winning friends even if you mean well.

In the US and Japan I find people much more open to new ideas and having their assumptions challenged. In Britain it's all a lot more cliquey with decisions often based on who shouts loudest and has the most influence. Promotions are too often based on 'whose face fits' rather rather than results and competence which I find very depressing. Group-think is absolutely rife in my view.

You may recall the scrapping of the MRA4 Nimrod in 2010. Some very distinguished people failed to realise that the 1960's Comet airframes on which it was to be built were essentially 'coach built' to a non uniform standard . Something should have told them from the start it was a bad idea - but the decision had been taken and nobody wanted to rock the boat by saying 'hey wait a minute this is a terrible idea'.

Unfortunately this made it almost impossible to fit the all new wings to the Comet fuselage - some of the mounting points differed by up to 4 inches!.

The point is that a handyman with a £2.99 tape measure could have spotted this - but the senior people did not and in the end 4 billion pounds had to be written off. So I always check facts for myself and if someone tells me an argument is settled..well double check the facts and assumptions made.

So no I would never dismiss somebody less experienced by saying they don't know what they are talking about, are motivated by bitterness, or need to 'move on' - the best, the great and the good can and do get it spectacularly wrong. Sometimes the most obvious mistakes are the hardest to spot by people at the core of a project.

Lovely car the P5B but's for me it's got to be the SD1 3500 with the manual gearbox

Engine hours in terms of cycles depends entirely on how the crew use the engines, an engine cycle is from idol -100% and back to idol, that rarely happens in display flying, 100%-50%-75%-40%-100% the trick is using these part cycles efficiently to maximize the full cycle usage, which is why the crew use alot of momentum rather than power to fly displays, less cycles, over the last 2 season non display takeoffs were at a low power settings, to conserve cycles. Current on wing time about 200 hours, that doesn't mean there is 1800 hours missing life, RR said they would support the engines for 1200 cycles irrespective of previous RAF usage, the trust have had numerous conversation with RR about increasing the number of available cycles, but the answer has always been no 1200 is what you have mo more no less.

Thanks for the additional information - I can see the rationale in changing to cycle based monitoring to reflect changing temperatures and loads. Commercial airline jets running at steady loads for long periods must have a much easier life.

If RR's 1200 cycle limit only corresponds to around 200 Vulcan flying hours that's only 10% of the hours that the engine would have been permitted to run in the 80's and 90's. It would be interesting to see the reasoning for such a drastic reduction. RR quote a 0.00001% chance of a 'hazardous engine failure' per flying hour for an engne operating less than 1200 cycles...that's about the same chance as me being killed as a pedestrian next year ie acceptably low. Are all CAA certified aircraft held to this standard ?

I remember in 1993 it was reported in the press that XH558 was at the end of it's airframe life ...engine life wasn't mentioned then as far as I know as a factor.

Perhaps RR use a different and more stringent risk assessment for engines certified by the CAA compared to those certified for military use ?. Certainly RR felt able to support the elderly Spey and Conway series engines on the MR2 Nimrod and VC-10 fleet up until 2007 and 2013 so the expertise must not be entirely extinct.

Re. Lovely car the P5B but's for me it's got to be the SD1 3500 with the manual gearbox

I hope it's the Vitesse. If it's twin plenum they're getting as rare as hens teeth these days!

No just a 3500 Vanden Plas unfortunately...much nicer car than that awful re-badged Honda thing!I would love a Vitesse twin plenum ..but then I wouldn't have a pair of twin Stromberg carburettors to play with on Sunday mornings and it still makes a lovely noise!.